Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

You know, there could be a Giant Swiss Cheese floating in the Atlantic Ocean, and I can't completely disprove that there is one, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to hem and haw about it. If someone were to tell me that this Cheese exists, I'm going to say "you're wrong, it doesn't". When someone shows me physical evidence of the Cheese, then I'll change my mind, but I'm not going to entertain that every absurd thing out there might exist.

If no evidence exists pertaining to something's existence, the automatic stance pretty much everyone takes is a negative. There's no reason that God should be given any special treatment. If I'm God Agnostic, I have to be Giant Cheese agnostic and everything else agnostic too.

I don't think that's an agnostic approach. Agnostic literally means "(I) don't know", so the agnostic answer when told such a Cheese exist would be "could be, could be not. I don't know either way", since as you say, there is still a possibility of this existing (let's just say some huge rich idiot went through the trouble of making that cheese and threw it into the ocean just for gigs). By saying "you're wrong" then you commit to one end and performed a leap of faith because you will have to first sweep through the Atlantic Ocean to prove that there is indeed no cheese (and this one is doable compared to sweeping the whole universe(s?) to prove that there is a God).

You could say being agnostic is being half-assed since you don't commit to any side. But if you ask me, it is the only logical answer one can make to the question whether God exists with such a lack of evidence on either side. You may be able to rationalize why God is or isn't, but it ultimately won't mount to a definitive proof. In the end it's your own belief whether God exist or not.
We simply don't know, and I'd say we can't know.

I don't think that's an agnostic approach. Agnostic literally means "(I) don't know", so the agnostic answer when told such a Cheese exist would be "could be, could be not. I don't know either way", since as you say, there is still a possibility of this existing (let's just say some huge rich idiot went through the trouble of making that cheese and threw it into the ocean just for gigs). By saying "you're wrong" then you commit to one end and performed a leap of faith because you will have to first sweep through the Atlantic Ocean to prove that there is indeed no cheese (and this one is doable compared to sweeping the whole universe(s?) to prove that there is a God).

The logic equation does favor agnosticism, but come on, we also have the practicality problem.

DonQuigleone certainly could acknowledge that his "no, goddammit, there's no giant cheese floating around the Atlantic" is not logically perfect, because he doesn't have access to real time satellite data on the entire ocean surface. But even so, it's also very practical to tell giant Atlantic cheese believers to eff off. He doesn't have to acknowledge anything because the burden of proof lies in the giant cheese eaters side.

Of course, if he fancies himself open-minded, once presented otherwise with evidence of floating Atlantic cheese, he ought to be willing to change his position. Flat Earth Atheism is unhealthily attractive to stray lighting bolts.

But for now, he's perfectly within his right to ask why he must give extra courtesy to the God believers (Goddists!) as opposed to whatever courtesy he could muster for the Mozzarellians. I'll admit, numbers have powers of their own, ironically not logically either (argumentum ad populum), but because the followers of ancient desert gods are much more likely to hang me up on a tree if I am in the wrong place at the wrong time while saying the wrong things, than the gentlemen of the society of giant Atlantic cheese.

But since I am safe behind the Internet (though not behind 7 proxies...n00b, I know), well...

Also, agnosticism in the specific issue of divine providence maybe quite convenient, but stretching the logical underpinnings of this principle too far and we will venture very quickly into the territory of solipsism: "I think therefore I am, maybe, not sure, but I'm even less sure if reality, my mom, and you aren't the product of my own mind. Therefore go away." Or, for example, DonQuigleone cannot be 100% absolutely sure if his senses are lying to him and the cheese are already there but he alone couldn't smell them.

DonQuigleone certainly could acknowledge that his "no, goddammit, there's no giant cheese floating around the Atlantic" is not logically perfect, because he doesn't have access to real time satellite data on the entire ocean surface. But even so, it's also very practical to tell giant Atlantic cheese believers to eff off. He doesn't have to acknowledge anything because the burden of proof lies in the giant cheese eaters side.

You are right. Being an agnostic doesn't mean you have to acknowledge anything. And by simply saying "I don't know" then in a way we're exempt from the burden of proof, and it's kind of the point I've said all along. You could say it's a "cop out" option, because as you said, practicality becomes an issue(or should I say implausibility) when you need to prove things like these. Saying "I don't know" is practical isn't it? No need to attack the other party there.

I don't think that's an agnostic approach. Agnostic literally means "(I) don't know", so the agnostic answer when told such a Cheese exist would be "could be, could be not. I don't know either way", since as you say, there is still a possibility of this existing (let's just say some huge rich idiot went through the trouble of making that cheese and threw it into the ocean just for gigs). By saying "you're wrong" then you commit to one end and performed a leap of faith because you will have to first sweep through the Atlantic Ocean to prove that there is indeed no cheese (and this one is doable compared to sweeping the whole universe(s?) to prove that there is a God).

It rapidly becomes absurd because the fact is, you can't be absolutely certain of anything. But in real life we have to regularly make judgement calls. So many things out there are so damn unlikely, that unless I'm shown evidence, I'm not going to believe it exists. I can't go around giving every crazy notion it's proper bit of respect of "well it probably doesn't exist, but I can't be definitively sure either". Are we going to say the same about cheeses, tin foil hats, UFOs and everything else? If we're 99% sure of something (as I am about god), I think it's more honest to say "I don't think it exists" but remain open to the possibility of being proven wrong. I think the agnostic position is weak, because it advocates a particular equality to both sides of the argument that I think isn't there. One side is logically minimalist, the other is institutionalised superstitions.

That said, I like Agnostics fine, I just think most agnostics wouldn't be agnostics if there wasn't a large number of easily offended theists out there, I think most agnostics are de facto atheists anyway. If a person was truly agnostic and talked about nothing being objectively true, then I might start getting annoyed. Thankfully that's rare.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irenicus

DonQuigleone certainly could acknowledge that his "no, goddammit, there's no giant cheese floating around the Atlantic" is not logically perfect, because he doesn't have access to real time satellite data on the entire ocean surface. But even so, it's also very practical to tell giant Atlantic cheese believers to eff off. He doesn't have to acknowledge anything because the burden of proof lies in the giant cheese eaters side.

Pretty much this.

Quote:

But for now, he's perfectly within his right to ask why he must give extra courtesy to the God believers (Goddists!) as opposed to whatever courtesy he could muster for the Mozzarellians. I'll admit, numbers have powers of their own, ironically not logically either (argumentum ad populum), but because the followers of ancient desert gods are much more likely to hang me up on a tree if I am in the wrong place at the wrong time while saying the wrong things, than the gentlemen of the society of giant Atlantic cheese.

Indeed, that's why I tend to be pretty tactful about these issues outside the safety of the internet...

Quote:

Also, agnosticism in the specific issue of divine providence maybe quite convenient, but stretching the logical underpinnings of this principle too far and we will venture very quickly into the territory of solipsism: "I think therefore I am, maybe, not sure, but I'm even less sure if reality, my mom, and you aren't the product of my own mind. Therefore go away." Or, for example, DonQuigleone cannot be 100% absolutely sure if his senses are lying to him and the cheese are already there but he alone couldn't smell them.

Exactly, if we don't take a defined stance on god, then logically we shouldn't take a defined stance on anything. But on everyday matters you can't really say "well I can't really know for certain but...". You can't be certain the onions in your fridge are truly onions. So will you say to someone helping you cook, "fetch me that thing which I believe looks like an onion, but I can't be too sure whether it is or isn't an onion".

Likewise, look at our personal lives. I can't be too sure that my son is actually my son. So when my son asks me "are you my daddy?" am I going to say back "Well I don't think I can truly know one way or the other." And let me tell you, there's a much higher chance of that child not being mine, then there is of god existing, in that the former is merely improbable, while the latter is nearly impossible(if not absolutely impossible).

DonQuigleone, I think you are simplifying things by equating pondering the existence of God compared to wondering if onions are really onions or if your son is really your son, etc.

We aren't talking about things such as looking at an onion on a counter or interfacing with the child that you know is your son. We are talking about things that involve mysteries and unknowns. Things where we just don't have definite answers to.

If this helps you, don't just focus solely on the idea of a Judeo-Christian God. Think of the concept of "A higher power and order". Was the universe intended to form from some higher power? We humans gotta ponder, are all the phenomenons that we know about and can observe, and all the ones we don't even know about yet, are they all part of some higher power and order and is their a purpose to existence, or is it all just from random occurrences, and nothing more? The universe was born and if it didn't happen just right, it'd be far different than it is now and there'd be no stars and no planetary systems. Earth formed and got ideal conditions for life. Earth had no complex life for a few billion years and eventually complex life forms came and eventually us sentient human beings with higher thought came along and cultures and societies came along and we are far above the creatures and beasts of Earth in so many ways. We have arts and sciences and discovered mathematics and spirituality exists and people can create so much purpose for their lives. All these right causes and conditions fell into place, some things happening just perfectly. Is it all just from random occurrences, and that is all there is to it, or is there something more (maybe much more) to reality? These are things steeped in mysteries. These kind of things are truly worth pondering about. This all just simply can't be compared to "I'm looking at an onion on the counter and I know what onions are but can I really be sure it is an onion?".

Was this universe born (and all sorts of scientific laws displaying order came with it) just because reality just does things and sometimes things work out, or is there much more to reality than just chaotic, soulless, swirling randomness. That is stuff worth pondering deeply about.

It rapidly becomes absurd because the fact is, you can't be absolutely certain of anything.

That's where belief comes in. Not just religion, just...belief in something, anything. You can always choose to adhere to anything you like to give some sort of security and certainty.

Quote:

But in real life we have to regularly make judgement calls. So many things out there are so damn unlikely, that unless I'm shown evidence, I'm not going to believe it exists.

No one is telling you to do otherwise. You are free to believe what you want. I was only addressing that what you described back there wasn't really agnostic.

Quote:

Are we going to say the same about cheeses, tin foil hats, UFOs and everything else? If we're 99% sure of something (as I am about god), I think it's more honest to say "I don't think it exists" but remain open to the possibility of being proven wrong.

There's agnostic atheism. There's also agnostic theism. You can still be in either camp if you want to. Because as I said, what you choose to believe is your own personal right. But the point of agnosticism is not asserting your belief as fact. As I say, a half-assed cop-out choice in the whole matter, but it's also the most logically acceptable.

Quote:

Exactly, if we don't take a defined stance on god, then logically we shouldn't take a defined stance on anything. But on everyday matters you can't really say "well I can't really know for certain but...". You can't be certain the onions in your fridge are truly onions. So will you say to someone helping you cook, "fetch me that thing which I believe looks like an onion, but I can't be too sure whether it is or isn't an onion".

Likewise, look at our personal lives. I can't be too sure that my son is actually my son. So when my son asks me "are you my daddy?" am I going to say back "Well I don't think I can truly know one way or the other." And let me tell you, there's a much higher chance of that child not being mine, then there is of god existing, in that the former is merely improbable, while the latter is nearly impossible(if not absolutely impossible).

I apologize. Let me get this straight, I went along with that Cheese example to provide a picture, but Agnosticism is really only valid when there is no adequately presentable proof to either side of the argument to conclusively decide the matter. When there IS presentable evidence, then you can't be agnostic, because you CAN know, and reachable within human means (in which case "ignorance" would probably be a better term, but that's beside the point). Unlike the existence of onions and DNA (with collective-subjectivity to help give more objective certainty to it), there is still no way to submit adequate proof whether God exists or not, and that's why Agnosticism tends to not leave the theological and philosophical boundary because there are few issue in the practical world that has such a massive lack of conclusive evidence on either side. Agnosticism isn't really questioning or doubting the value of existence (that's whole different branch of -isms), but rather asserting that there is yet sufficient data to make a conclusion.

Btw, while it's been a pleasure discussing this, are we perhaps bordering on oot? Perhaps we should stop before the mods came in and sweep us?

DonQuigleone, I think you are simplifying things by equating pondering the existence of God compared to wondering if onions are really onions or if your son is really your son, etc.

Perhaps, but what I was referring to is how one deals with uncertainty. Gods are, of course, a more cosmic kind of uncertainty. But I think we should have similar ideas towards the cosmic as the mundane. IE we should take the most simple explanation as fact until proven otherwise. In the case of god, we have no evidence of his existence, and so the most simple explanation is that he doesn't exist.

Quote:

Was this universe born (and all sorts of scientific laws displaying order came with it) just because reality just does things and sometimes things work out, or is there much more to reality than just chaotic, soulless, swirling randomness. That is stuff worth pondering deeply about.

Perhaps so, but I think we can ponder if there's a higher order without bringing god into it. To me, the idea of god as most people present it is patently absurd. There might be some kind of abstract thing controlling the universe, but I think if it exists it would be so alien that we couldn't really call it "God". It would not fit any of our ideas of god. And even this abstract entity is something I think is very unlikely, unless there's some real evidence of it, it's a nice thought experiment, but ultimately with no basis for being true.

I am an atheist until proven otherwise, and I think this is the position the vast majority of atheists take, we're not "Flat Earth Atheists". If I received a revelation from God, I'd change my mind pretty quickly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erneiz_hyde

That's where belief comes in. Not just religion, just...belief in something, anything. You can always choose to adhere to anything you like to give some sort of security and certainty.

You can take things to a logical extreme and say everything is just a belief. I believe that god exists in the same way that I believe my onion is an onion, no giant cheese is floating in the atlantic, and that any child I might sire might be my own. These are all parts of reality, as I see it. If I can't speak a sure statement of god, then how can I make a sure statement about anything?

Quote:

There's agnostic atheism. There's also agnostic theism. You can still be in either camp if you want to. Because as I said, what you choose to believe is your own personal right. But the point of agnosticism is not asserting your belief as fact. As I say, a half-assed cop-out choice in the whole matter, but it's also the most logically acceptable.

If that's how you want to phrase it, then I'd say the vast majority of atheists are agnostic atheists. I have no met an atheist who would continue to be an atheist if they were to receive a clear proof of god's existence. However, I believe that will never happen.

Quote:

I apologize. Let me get this straight, I went along with that Cheese example to provide a picture, but Agnosticism is really only valid when there is no adequately presentable proof to either side of the argument to conclusively decide the matter. When there IS presentable evidence, then you can't be agnostic, because you CAN know, and reachable within human means (in which case "ignorance" would probably be a better term, but that's beside the point). Unlike the existence of onions and DNA (with collective-subjectivity to help give more objective certainty to it), there is still no way to submit adequate proof whether God exists or not, and that's why Agnosticism tends to not leave the theological and philosophical boundary because there are few issue in the practical world that has such a massive lack of conclusive evidence on either side. Agnosticism isn't really questioning or doubting the value of existence (that's whole different branch of -isms), but rather asserting that there is yet sufficient data to make a conclusion.

I use the cheese example for a reason. Both the Cheese and God are superlative claims, that have the possibility of existing. But most would view that Cheese as being absurd, and if I was to say "There's a cheese floating in the Atlantic ocean! It's there, voices have told me it is so!", you won't even entertain the possibility of it being true, I'm just a crazy guy, and you would be right to do so. If I brought you physical evidence of it, say I got a boat and brought you to see it, then you'd believe it's true.

There is no evidence in favour of god's existence. You can say there's no evidence that he doesn't exist, but you can't really prove a negative (as you can see with the cheese). The burden of proof always lies with the person making the claim. It is natural for the rest of us to disbelieve until that evidence is given.

There are many crazy superstitious things out there that people are trying to persuade me to believe, from the existence of thetans, to triangle power, to the power of star formations in the sky to predict the future(if only we could exactly figure out how!). There's no evidence of any of these things being true, but they all might be true. Sure, god might exist, but so might the cheese in the Atlantic ocean. Those things are so absurd that I'm going to assume the negative unless you show me something really amazing.

Quote:

Btw, while it's been a pleasure discussing this, are we perhaps bordering on oot? Perhaps we should stop before the mods came in and sweep us?

I think it's on topic. I will disbelieve this is offtopic until proven otherwise .

but because the followers of ancient desert gods are much more likely to hang me up on a tree if I am in the wrong place at the wrong time while saying the wrong things, than the gentlemen of the society of giant Atlantic cheese.

But since I am safe behind the Internet (though not behind 7 proxies...n00b, I know), well...

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Indeed, that's why I tend to be pretty tactful about these issues outside the safety of the internet...

Experienced it at least twice outside the internet, and those encounters are certainly not among the nicer moments in my life.
Which is why it's very rare for me to bring up the topic of religion, when talking casually with people I'm not yet familiar with.

What I don't get here is the insistence that something either is or isn't. I don't see anything wrong with making decisions with a purely probabilistic perspective in mind. There's really no reason extend as far as "belief" or "non-belief" when making a claim when you can just as easily label something as "probable" or "improbable". After all, there really is no such thing as anything "solid" to hold on to, be it physical sensations or religious dogma. It's not like acknowledging such things will change reality in any way.

As an agnostic atheist myself, I like to maintain a principle of absolute relativity in many things. As such, from my perspective, both empirical logic and blind faith are tools that people choose from in making sense of reality. One is not better than the other. Its just that a lot of us here go for the former rather than the latter.

__________________

"There’s an up higher than up, but at the very top, down is all there is."

I think it's on topic. I will disbelieve this is offtopic until proven otherwise .

YOU ARE OFF TOPIC.

Is that clear enough?

The purpose of this thread is not to argue the existence of God (which is one of the most boring discussions you can have on the internet since you cannot actually hit or yell at the person you are 'talking' to) or really even question anyone's beliefs, rather this thread simply serves to describe your own beliefs/belief system (and if necessary describe how you came to these conclusions).

This thread was created along the same lines as the general "How old are you?" or "How tall are you?" style of threads that pop up. Describing your religious beliefs in-thread is supposed to serve no other purpose than describing any other pertinent information you wish to disclose over the internet. This is not an actual debate thread (and I do not know why everyone wants it to be a debate thread). Follow RapidPotential's example (the post directly above mine).

I was born into a Muslim family, when I became older it didn't reqiure much thinking from me
I take a look at the world .. trees,grass,water,animals, even space and stars
I asked myself the simple question, how all of this was created ? how all of this works with a great system of life
how we, human beings created with a very "complicated" way .. be it cells,blood,hair .. anything

my simple answer .. Allah created this world, and gave humans many books to learn from through many prophets in history
the final one was the holy Qur'an, to find our salvation.
the book is written in arabic - our language - and yet no arabic person could ever wright even a sentence like it, it's in my language yet I can't come with anything that come close to it, this is why it considered a miracle even to this day and age
I always feel that Allah protect me ^^

anyway, I respect everyone's beliefs, and I wish a happy life for everyone ^^

Shinto (神道, literary means "the way of Gods) is a Japanese traditional religion.
I think that many of you have seen a Shinto shrine in anime lol

Shintoists don't have to pray seriously everyday such as Muslims.
However, I never have meal without saying "Itadakimasu(いただきます)."
This is not only a word for a cook, but also for food which was sacrificed for us.

That said, I like Agnostics fine, I just think most agnostics wouldn't be agnostics if there wasn't a large number of easily offended theists out there, I think most agnostics are de facto atheists anyway. If a person was truly agnostic and talked about nothing being objectively true, then I might start getting annoyed. Thankfully that's rare.

You could call me a de facto atheist, or as close as possible, but I usually refer to myself as agnostic. While the logic and the information I have gleaned/researched over my life has led me towards atheism, I acknowledge the severe deficit of understanding regarding the origins of time/space/life that all human beings possess. With this in mind, I would feel rather cocky in acting like I could even take the 'leap of faith' that theists and atheists take. If anything, I'm an ardent agnost. One thing I have faith in is the inability of humanity to truly understand the origins of the cosmos (perhaps someday, but certainly not in our present state of 'enlightenment'). Religious people and hardline atheists are both met with a roll of the eyes from me (even if I associate more with the atheist side...)

Quote:

Originally Posted by james0246

This is not an actual debate thread (and I do not know why everyone wants it to be a debate thread).

It's a fascinating topic, especially when discussed by mature individuals from a variety of different backgrounds. Of course, moderating such a discussion is a pain in the ass (due to proselytizing, mainly, and flaming if you have some less-than-mature thread participants) so I understand the rule. But you're questioning why people want to discuss and understand each others' theistic beliefs? That's one of the most fascinating discussions possible, imo, even given my above-mentioned ardent agnosticism. It gives a glimpse into worldview, personal philosophy, culture, and can touch upon science, history, morality, and many more categories. I'm not arguing to change your rule, but now you know why people want it to be a debate thread.

But you're questioning why people want to discuss and understand each others' theistic beliefs?

Discussing your beliefs is part of this thread (it is called "What's your religion?"), but discussion is not debate, and too often posters wish to debate their or other posters religion. Every time some one turns this topic into a debate they are directly asserting that their faith is superior (whether that faith be theistic or even atheistic) or that the faith of another is false. That is not the purpose of this thread, nor should it be the purpose of any religion thread on this forum.

Please feel free to discuss your beliefs, how they came to you, how they affect your life, etc. But, do not argue about your beliefs, nor should you feel that you have to defend your beliefs in this thread.